Venice readers speak out on mayor's Seaboard plan

The Seaboard industrial area, upper left, is seen from the Venice Avenue bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway. Venice Mayor John Holic wants to move the industries so the land bordering the waterway can be developed for shops and restaurants.

Published: Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.

VENICE - The notion of redeveloping Seaboard, an industrial sector designated by Venice town planner John Nolen nearly 90 years ago, into a waterfront district of shops, restaurants and even condos is drawing mixed reactions from Herald-Tribune readers.

Facts

PHOTO GALLERY

We asked readers to share their opinions about Mayor John Holic's idea of a community redevelopment agency for Seaboard.

As property values increase in Seaboard, the CRA would use the additional taxes to finance its redevelopment projects — such as gradually relocating Seaboard's industries closer to Interstate 75 and converting the area across the Intracoastal Waterway from downtown into a shopping and dining destination.

Here is a sampling of the comments:

Former Venice Mayor Ed Martin: "Before the plan lost county interest, a plan was developed that I felt might provide a gradual change. It called for planting trees and, in general, enhancing the treescape. An idea was floated to form a green link to the Waterway, perhaps from the Brickyard. Getting the agencies that control the Waterway to agree was never explored, because the potential funding dried up. Making the area more attractive, using some public space, might encourage mixed use development without driving out businesses that want to stay, It is certainly worth a closer look."

Jack Nugent: "This is total insanity! Even thinking about uprooting numerous businesses, potentially putting hundreds of workers out of jobs, replacing taxpaying entities with ones that 'might' be profitable is irresponsible of our city leaders. Surely there is other, vacant land available for this grandiose scheme."

Patrick Braga: "I agree with Ed Martin.... I'm all in favor of long-term redevelopment in Seaboard to consolidate and complement Venice's urban core; the location, after all, with easy transportation access and a waterfront park, is excellent, and new development would bring a boost to property values in the area.

"I don't support business relocation the way this article describes it, though. Instead, I would like to see consistent improvements to the public realm in Seaboard (sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) along with appropriate land use policies that can encourage market-based redevelopment."

Gerard Chabino: "Same old song. Power hungry politicians, greedy Realtors and developers are licking their chops. This is just like the coyote story that appeared in the Tribune last week. The animals have nowhere to go and hunt naturally due to development. Take a look at Laurel Road and what is going on. Hundreds of trees have been removed to make room for yet another greedy real estate development.

"How about the Tribune? It seems every issue is based on how well real estate is going! There is very little concern about the status quo here in the Venice area. Develop, develop, develop! What has happened to the very reason why most of us have chosen to live in this area? The Seaboard area needs to be left alone and just spruced up a little. Left unchecked our leaders will turn us into another Miami! Just ask the coyotes who have packed up and left there."

Ted Koszarski: "The Venice Seaboard (really Canalboard) development is a bad idea.

"We should not be driving jobs out of Venice. It will be very expensive. Venice already has considerable debt. Consider just the ever rising $30 million unfunded uniform services pension obligations. There are still too many empty retail storefronts and underpriced residences. Who is to say this would become an active retail area? I have read that, as part of this scheme, the water treatment plant, the fire station and public works facility would be moved elsewhere (perhaps Wellfield Park).

"Upgrade Venice Avenue between the Bypass and Venice Avenue bridge if you want to promote retail and pretend those Seaboard businesses are actually at the Venice airport, then the City Council would bend over backward to give them whatever they wanted."

"The day I moved here 10 years ago, I wondered why we didn't have any recreational transportation up and down the waterway. This development would be fantastic."

William Brown, owner of Venice Warehouse Complex in Seaboard: "The Venice Warehouse Complex... consists of 10 buildings, which totals 90,000 square feet and 170 warehouse units. I am the largest landowner in the industrial area with about three acres, from Warfield to Seaboard and Spur Street.

"At the present time, we have five vacancies. From 2001 until 2006, we had a waiting list of a minimum of 20 small businesses waiting to rent a space. The smallest space is 350 square feet and the largest 5,000 square feet. Monthly rent for a 13-x-25-foot starts at $200 for a one-year lease. Our tenants consist of a variety of small businesses that (light industrial) zoning allows from auto repair, plumbing, roofing, pool screens, car detailing to cabinet makers, etc. If these 170-plus small businesses had to relocate from a rent of $200 per month it would be a great burden to them and put them out of business. One half of our tenants have been with Venice Warehouse Complex for more than five years.

"When I purchased this property in 2001, I had sold property in Illinois and did a 1031 exchange or I would have been forced to pay thousands in capital gains. If I am forced to sell this property by the city of Venice, it will cost me thousands of dollars in capital gains and put more than 170 small businesses out of business.

"Let's leave good enough alone and try to improve the area."

Dave Hilsheimer paraphrased a Greek proverb: "Wise men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never enjoy."

Kimberly Parker: "I think this is a terrible idea. Many of the people that patronize those businesses do so because it's convenient to where they live or work and would be unable to drive out that far. The city of Venice should just leave well enough alone. I'm sure it would cut into the income of the businesses located on the island as well. Good luck to all the business owners I hope you get to stay right where you are."

Paul McCullough, board member at Venice Art Center: "The possible redevelopment of prime real estate and the economic benefits to the city of Venice is a sound idea and should be explored.

"The mayor is proposing a measured study of the concept which should be supported - this is one of the ways that cities prosper.

"Venice is a great city and should continue to look to the future to ensure that the quality of life for all its citizens is one of constant improvement. Venice, a planned city, was created by one-man's vision whose ideas were far ahead of his time and our citizens and residents should continue to seek possible new horizons for future generations."

Greta Lynch: "This would make Venice a nightmare."

Nan Rich: "I have lived in Venice for nine years at Waterford Golf course. Even though I do not live on 'the island' of Venice, I love the downtown area just the way it is! Is has the charm of a small town. Yes, it can expand — but over to Miami Avenue and the stores inside the Kentucky Military building could be used (filled). The other side of the bridge should not be developed as a shopping district because the old downtown area would be affected negatively. Then the bridge would have to be redone, then parking on that side, then the charm would be gone! Keep it the way it is now. The parking problem could be handled by building a garage next to and under the Venice bridge."

Rudy Savelli: "Venice is as perfect as you can get a small town, one everyone in the country would most likely want to live in. Like the old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! And Venice ain't broke! Fix needed work but don't hurt the people and businesses in doing so."

Daniel A. Miller: "There are several long established businesses in the Seaboard industrial area which are quietly going along, providing jobs and paying taxes in Venice. The CRA proposes to change all of that. Count me as being opposed to changing what appears to be working for Venice as a whole into something apparently designed to be a benefit to downtown merchants.

"Today's paper is full of stories of state, local and federal governments' failures to execute when attempting to make changes on a grand scale. Time and again I have heard 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' and this appears to apply to establishing a Seaboard CRA. Let the CRA people find something else to do."

Joe and Gerry Rodriguez: "We completely agree with council member (Emilio) Carlesimo's statement that long-established businesses probably would not survive a relocation effort.

"Our question is why are we even considering a competitive retail area away from Venice downtown. Do we not have enough attractive and successful businesses along Venice Avenue?

"What are the benefits that will be derived from this future project? So, if we develop another entertainment district in the Seaboard area, then we will have to build a new bridge over the Intracoastal to connect this area to the existing downtown area because the Venice Avenue bridge is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly. So how much more will that cost?

"What will it cost to make the Seaboard area into a new downtown as opposed to making it more attractive for businesses such as (Sam) Lubus's factory? Why do we have to uproot all of these small, successful businesses away from their present location? Is there enough pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the Venetian Walkway and Legacy Trail to warrant the construction of restaurants, fast food places, hotels, condos etc.?

"Venice is beautiful just the way it is, although there have been ill-advised plans to overdevelop it very rapidly, such as down at the airport.

"Venice is a refreshing step away from the over-development of land that is occurring along I-75 and up in Sarasota. Do we really want to be a mere extension of Sarasota or even Tampa?

"We have been residents of the Venice area since 1998 and have been over to the East Coast often enough to know that we don't want another Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale or even South Beach. We chose the Venice area for our retirement because of its unique small town charm. Enough with the overdevelopment!"

Bruce Rice: "I think the Seaboard industrial area should stay just as it is. Relocating the businesses that are presently there to east of I-75 would probably force many of them to go out of business as the 'customer loyalty' is not like it used to be. If a customer can find what they need close by there's where they will go and they won't travel any farther than they have to. In addition I have seen what has happened with eminent domain purchases. Someone always gets hurt financially, usually the business owner or home owner.

"The area of Seaboard is not a bunch of high-polluting factories, just a lot of good, honest people trying to make a living. I say leave it as it is."

Liz Hubans: "Did you ever see how backed up the Venice Avenue bridge gets during season? If I were a tourist, I wouldn't even bother. No matter how wide they make it, traffic will still be backed up on Venice Avenue and people coming from the by-pass. Just my opinion."

Henry Martinez: "Typical politician not leaving something that works alone to make 'better.'"

Robert E. Copeland: "There are far too few facts presented to make a really informed opinion. But we know enough to ask many questions.

"1) Where will the service industries go that all residents now need and use? Will they go to North Port so that we have to either travel 10 miles farther or move there ourselves?

"2) What is the growth goal for Venice of those who want this developed for restaurants, shops, etc.? Do they want Venice to double in population to support these new shops and restaurants? One reason that so many people find this a desirable area to live and visit is that it is the current size that it is — making it significantly larger will certainly make this a less desirable place to live for many.

"3) Is there really a need for new shops and restaurants along the Intracoastal. What is the evidence for this? Why hasn't the west bank that is now already available been so developed? For example, there is quite a large space next to the east bridge which has been vacant since the Moose and American Legion were moved east to Auburn Avenue. (And the old BP gas station is also vacant on that corner of the Trail.) There is plenty of vacant space down farther south on the Isle by south bridge and the city is already considering trying to get the area near the airport and the old trapeze grounds developed. Do we need two such large and competing developments now?

"4) What developers have already approached the city honchos on this idea? Have they put forward any specific ideas or plans? Do they own any of this land or have options on it? One has to wonder if there is even a hint of conflict of interest or graft involved.

"5) Where would the city plan to move its public works and utilities departments (and fire station) and what would this cost the city? What areas would be affected by the relocation? How much more inconvenient would it be for citizens to get to those facilities and would it cost the city more to operate them from a less central location?

"In short, this trial balloon needs to be punctured rapidly until the mayor and City Council come forward with one hell of a lot more information that shows it even should be considered as part of a long-range plan for the city."

<p><em>VENICE</em> - The notion of redeveloping Seaboard, an industrial sector designated by Venice town planner John Nolen nearly 90 years ago, into a waterfront district of shops, restaurants and even condos is drawing mixed reactions from Herald-Tribune readers.</p><p>We asked readers to share their opinions about Mayor John Holic's idea of a community redevelopment agency for Seaboard.</p><p>As property values increase in Seaboard, the CRA would use the additional taxes to finance its redevelopment projects — such as gradually relocating Seaboard's industries closer to Interstate 75 and converting the area across the Intracoastal Waterway from downtown into a shopping and dining destination.</p><p>Here is a sampling of the comments:</p><p><b>Former Venice Mayor Ed Martin:</b> "Before the plan lost county interest, a plan was developed that I felt might provide a gradual change. It called for planting trees and, in general, enhancing the treescape. An idea was floated to form a green link to the Waterway, perhaps from the Brickyard. Getting the agencies that control the Waterway to agree was never explored, because the potential funding dried up. Making the area more attractive, using some public space, might encourage mixed use development without driving out businesses that want to stay, It is certainly worth a closer look."</p><p><b>Jack Nugent:</b> "This is total insanity! Even thinking about uprooting numerous businesses, potentially putting hundreds of workers out of jobs, replacing taxpaying entities with ones that 'might' be profitable is irresponsible of our city leaders. Surely there is other, vacant land available for this grandiose scheme."</p><p><b>Patrick Braga:</b> "I agree with Ed Martin.... I'm all in favor of long-term redevelopment in Seaboard to consolidate and complement Venice's urban core; the location, after all, with easy transportation access and a waterfront park, is excellent, and new development would bring a boost to property values in the area.</p><p>"I don't support business relocation the way this article describes it, though. Instead, I would like to see consistent improvements to the public realm in Seaboard (sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) along with appropriate land use policies that can encourage market-based redevelopment."</p><p><b>Gerard Chabino:</b> "Same old song. Power hungry politicians, greedy Realtors and developers are licking their chops. This is just like the coyote story that appeared in the Tribune last week. The animals have nowhere to go and hunt naturally due to development. Take a look at Laurel Road and what is going on. Hundreds of trees have been removed to make room for yet another greedy real estate development.</p><p>"How about the Tribune? It seems every issue is based on how well real estate is going! There is very little concern about the status quo here in the Venice area. Develop, develop, develop! What has happened to the very reason why most of us have chosen to live in this area? The Seaboard area needs to be left alone and just spruced up a little. Left unchecked our leaders will turn us into another Miami! Just ask the coyotes who have packed up and left there."</p><p><b>Ted Koszarski:</b> "The Venice Seaboard (really Canalboard) development is a bad idea.</p><p>"We should not be driving jobs out of Venice. It will be very expensive. Venice already has considerable debt. Consider just the ever rising $30 million unfunded uniform services pension obligations. There are still too many empty retail storefronts and underpriced residences. Who is to say this would become an active retail area? I have read that, as part of this scheme, the water treatment plant, the fire station and public works facility would be moved elsewhere (perhaps Wellfield Park).</p><p>"Upgrade Venice Avenue between the Bypass and Venice Avenue bridge if you want to promote retail and pretend those Seaboard businesses are actually at the Venice airport, then the City Council would bend over backward to give them whatever they wanted."</p><p><b>Bob Harsch, with real estate firm Michael Saunders & Co.:</b> "Go, go, go. Sooner than later. The cement company moved, as did a couple fraternal organizations. Some auto repair businesses are already for sale. Why wait? Go.</p><p>"The day I moved here 10 years ago, I wondered why we didn't have any recreational transportation up and down the waterway. This development would be fantastic."</p><p><b>William Brown, owner of Venice Warehouse Complex in Seaboard:</b> "The Venice Warehouse Complex... consists of 10 buildings, which totals 90,000 square feet and 170 warehouse units. I am the largest landowner in the industrial area with about three acres, from Warfield to Seaboard and Spur Street.</p><p>"At the present time, we have five vacancies. From 2001 until 2006, we had a waiting list of a minimum of 20 small businesses waiting to rent a space. The smallest space is 350 square feet and the largest 5,000 square feet. Monthly rent for a 13-x-25-foot starts at $200 for a one-year lease. Our tenants consist of a variety of small businesses that (light industrial) zoning allows from auto repair, plumbing, roofing, pool screens, car detailing to cabinet makers, etc. If these 170-plus small businesses had to relocate from a rent of $200 per month it would be a great burden to them and put them out of business. One half of our tenants have been with Venice Warehouse Complex for more than five years.</p><p>"When I purchased this property in 2001, I had sold property in Illinois and did a 1031 exchange or I would have been forced to pay thousands in capital gains. If I am forced to sell this property by the city of Venice, it will cost me thousands of dollars in capital gains and put more than 170 small businesses out of business.</p><p>"Let's leave good enough alone and try to improve the area."</p><p><b>Dave Hilsheimer paraphrased a Greek proverb: </b> "Wise men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never enjoy."</p><p><b>Kimberly Parker: </b>"I think this is a terrible idea. Many of the people that patronize those businesses do so because it's convenient to where they live or work and would be unable to drive out that far. The city of Venice should just leave well enough alone. I'm sure it would cut into the income of the businesses located on the island as well. Good luck to all the business owners I hope you get to stay right where you are."</p><p><b>Paul McCullough, board member at Venice Art Center:</b> "The possible redevelopment of prime real estate and the economic benefits to the city of Venice is a sound idea and should be explored.</p><p>"The mayor is proposing a measured study of the concept which should be supported - this is one of the ways that cities prosper.</p><p>"Venice is a great city and should continue to look to the future to ensure that the quality of life for all its citizens is one of constant improvement. Venice, a planned city, was created by one-man's vision whose ideas were far ahead of his time and our citizens and residents should continue to seek possible new horizons for future generations."</p><p><b>Greta Lynch: </b>"This would make Venice a nightmare."</p><p><b>Nan Rich:</b> "I have lived in Venice for nine years at Waterford Golf course. Even though I do not live on 'the island' of Venice, I love the downtown area just the way it is! Is has the charm of a small town. Yes, it can expand — but over to Miami Avenue and the stores inside the Kentucky Military building could be used (filled). The other side of the bridge should not be developed as a shopping district because the old downtown area would be affected negatively. Then the bridge would have to be redone, then parking on that side, then the charm would be gone! Keep it the way it is now. The parking problem could be handled by building a garage next to and under the Venice bridge."</p><p><b>Rudy Savelli: </b>"Venice is as perfect as you can get a small town, one everyone in the country would most likely want to live in. Like the old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! And Venice ain't broke! Fix needed work but don't hurt the people and businesses in doing so."</p><p><b>Daniel A. Miller: </b>"There are several long established businesses in the Seaboard industrial area which are quietly going along, providing jobs and paying taxes in Venice. The CRA proposes to change all of that. Count me as being opposed to changing what appears to be working for Venice as a whole into something apparently designed to be a benefit to downtown merchants.</p><p>"Today's paper is full of stories of state, local and federal governments' failures to execute when attempting to make changes on a grand scale. Time and again I have heard 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' and this appears to apply to establishing a Seaboard CRA. Let the CRA people find something else to do."</p><p><b>Joe and Gerry Rodriguez: </b>"We completely agree with council member (Emilio) Carlesimo's statement that long-established businesses probably would not survive a relocation effort.</p><p>"Our question is why are we even considering a competitive retail area away from Venice downtown. Do we not have enough attractive and successful businesses along Venice Avenue?</p><p>"What are the benefits that will be derived from this future project? So, if we develop another entertainment district in the Seaboard area, then we will have to build a new bridge over the Intracoastal to connect this area to the existing downtown area because the Venice Avenue bridge is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly. So how much more will that cost?</p><p>"What will it cost to make the Seaboard area into a new downtown as opposed to making it more attractive for businesses such as (Sam) Lubus's factory? Why do we have to uproot all of these small, successful businesses away from their present location? Is there enough pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the Venetian Walkway and Legacy Trail to warrant the construction of restaurants, fast food places, hotels, condos etc.?</p><p>"Venice is beautiful just the way it is, although there have been ill-advised plans to overdevelop it very rapidly, such as down at the airport.</p><p>"Venice is a refreshing step away from the over-development of land that is occurring along I-75 and up in Sarasota. Do we really want to be a mere extension of Sarasota or even Tampa?</p><p>"We have been residents of the Venice area since 1998 and have been over to the East Coast often enough to know that we don't want another Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale or even South Beach. We chose the Venice area for our retirement because of its unique small town charm. Enough with the overdevelopment!"</p><p><b>Bruce Rice: </b>"I think the Seaboard industrial area should stay just as it is. Relocating the businesses that are presently there to east of I-75 would probably force many of them to go out of business as the 'customer loyalty' is not like it used to be. If a customer can find what they need close by there's where they will go and they won't travel any farther than they have to. In addition I have seen what has happened with eminent domain purchases. Someone always gets hurt financially, usually the business owner or home owner.</p><p>"The area of Seaboard is not a bunch of high-polluting factories, just a lot of good, honest people trying to make a living. I say leave it as it is."</p><p><b>Liz Hubans:</b> "Did you ever see how backed up the Venice Avenue bridge gets during season? If I were a tourist, I wouldn't even bother. No matter how wide they make it, traffic will still be backed up on Venice Avenue and people coming from the by-pass. Just my opinion."</p><p><b>Henry Martinez:</b> "Typical politician not leaving something that works alone to make 'better.'"</p><p><b>Robert E. Copeland:</b> "There are far too few facts presented to make a really informed opinion. But we know enough to ask many questions.</p><p>"1) Where will the service industries go that all residents now need and use? Will they go to North Port so that we have to either travel 10 miles farther or move there ourselves?</p><p>"2) What is the growth goal for Venice of those who want this developed for restaurants, shops, etc.? Do they want Venice to double in population to support these new shops and restaurants? One reason that so many people find this a desirable area to live and visit is that it is the current size that it is — making it significantly larger will certainly make this a less desirable place to live for many.</p><p>"3) Is there really a need for new shops and restaurants along the Intracoastal. What is the evidence for this? Why hasn't the west bank that is now already available been so developed? For example, there is quite a large space next to the east bridge which has been vacant since the Moose and American Legion were moved east to Auburn Avenue. (And the old BP gas station is also vacant on that corner of the Trail.) There is plenty of vacant space down farther south on the Isle by south bridge and the city is already considering trying to get the area near the airport and the old trapeze grounds developed. Do we need two such large and competing developments now?</p><p>"4) What developers have already approached the city honchos on this idea? Have they put forward any specific ideas or plans? Do they own any of this land or have options on it? One has to wonder if there is even a hint of conflict of interest or graft involved.</p><p>"5) Where would the city plan to move its public works and utilities departments (and fire station) and what would this cost the city? What areas would be affected by the relocation? How much more inconvenient would it be for citizens to get to those facilities and would it cost the city more to operate them from a less central location?</p><p>"In short, this trial balloon needs to be punctured rapidly until the mayor and City Council come forward with one hell of a lot more information that shows it even should be considered as part of a long-range plan for the city."</p>